<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A tiny little LITA-related post</title>
	<atom:link href="http://walt.lishost.org/2009/10/a-tiny-little-lita-related-post/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://walt.lishost.org/2009/10/a-tiny-little-lita-related-post/</link>
	<description>The library voice of the radical middle.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 16:58:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Bonfield</title>
		<link>http://walt.lishost.org/2009/10/a-tiny-little-lita-related-post/comment-page-1/#comment-40477</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Bonfield</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:07:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://walt.lishost.org/?p=1542#comment-40477</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I can understand why folks may not want to get into it with someone who asserts on FriendFeed that LITA is 5-10 years behind the times, because making this allegation via FF seems pretty troll-ish. However, just because the context activates my troll sensors, the allegation itself is defensible.

When I enrolled in library school three years ago, I immediately
joined ALA at the student rate and signed up for sections and round tables based on their descriptions. I&#039;m interested in IT, so joining LITA seemed like a no-brainer. And then, a couple of months later, I visited the LITA website for the first time. I know this sounds melodramatic, but I was aghast. I couldn&#039;t believe the technology section&#039;s website looked so dated or that its information could be so stale. I immediately asked ALA for my money back and used it to join ASIS&amp;T.

This year, I went ahead and rejoined LITA because I like what I&#039;ve
been reading and hearing from its leaders and I wanted to give it
another chance. But the website still looks the same as it did when I
asked for my money back three years ago. The home page still resolves to http://www.lita.org/ala/mgrps/divs/lita/litahome.cfm -- I mean, ColdFusion?! Really? And many links appear to be at least as dated as they were back then. For instance, visit the second link in the menu, Resources &amp; Services
(http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/lita/litaresources/litaresources.cfm) and start poking around. I&#039;d say 5-10 years is pretty accurate.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can understand why folks may not want to get into it with someone who asserts on FriendFeed that LITA is 5-10 years behind the times, because making this allegation via FF seems pretty troll-ish. However, just because the context activates my troll sensors, the allegation itself is defensible.</p>
<p>When I enrolled in library school three years ago, I immediately<br />
joined ALA at the student rate and signed up for sections and round tables based on their descriptions. I&#8217;m interested in IT, so joining LITA seemed like a no-brainer. And then, a couple of months later, I visited the LITA website for the first time. I know this sounds melodramatic, but I was aghast. I couldn&#8217;t believe the technology section&#8217;s website looked so dated or that its information could be so stale. I immediately asked ALA for my money back and used it to join ASIS&amp;T.</p>
<p>This year, I went ahead and rejoined LITA because I like what I&#8217;ve<br />
been reading and hearing from its leaders and I wanted to give it<br />
another chance. But the website still looks the same as it did when I<br />
asked for my money back three years ago. The home page still resolves to <a href="http://www.lita.org/ala/mgrps/divs/lita/litahome.cfm" rel="nofollow">http://www.lita.org/ala/mgrps/divs/lita/litahome.cfm</a> &#8212; I mean, ColdFusion?! Really? And many links appear to be at least as dated as they were back then. For instance, visit the second link in the menu, Resources &amp; Services<br />
(<a href="http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/lita/litaresources/litaresources.cfm" rel="nofollow">http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/lita/litaresources/litaresources.cfm</a>) and start poking around. I&#8217;d say 5-10 years is pretty accurate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
